Conversation
Replying to
the point of open source is to not own things but a lot of people still feel like they ought to
1
3
They still own their work but they explicitly allowed people to use it for free for any purpose with a permissive license.
People choosing to use this chose to use a hobbyist project with no claim of being suitable for production use. License explicitly makes it their problem.
1
4
yes you have described the license structure of most open source
the spirit of open source is public ownership, and vandalizing stuff given your privileged position of owner is not in that spirit
1
7
The spirit of open source as a whole is definitely not public ownership / control. There's a small subset of open source software that's public domain software but not owning the copyright over it doesn't mean that someone doesn't own a certain repository developing the software.
1
1
this seems like is / ought
there is nothing, legally or practically, stopping a maintainer from doing this
I don't think that's the spirit of open source; the project can be easily forked and re-hosted but users weren't doing that because they trusted the ecosystem
1
2
Open source is making the source code available for anyone to use for any purpose even if that purpose is mass murdering people. The spirit of open source is devaluing labour so that corporations can build software more cheaply. This person didn't realize that getting into it.
It's their own fault they released they software under an open source license but I think most open source maintainers have felt this way at one point or another.
I don't really think they did anything particularly malicious or terrible. It wouldn't pass any basic smoke test.
2
They didn't put in some kind of backdoor or trap. It literally just spams nonsense to the console in an infinite loop when you load it. The only way you got negatively impacted by this beyond minor annoyance is blindly updating to latest versions and deploying it with no testing.
1
Show replies